Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UE5-MCP-Server

UE5-MCP-Server

by hahatu112113
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

ue5_duplicate_asset

Duplicate any asset in Unreal Engine 5's Content Browser by specifying source and destination paths.

Instructions

Duplicates an asset in the Content Browser.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sourceAssetPath": "<sourceAssetPath>",
      "destinationAssetPath": "<destinationAssetPath>"
    },
    "name": "ue5_duplicate_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceAssetPathYesThe asset path to duplicate.
destinationAssetPathYesThe new asset path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Duplicates' without explaining side effects like overwriting existing assets, permissions required, or whether the operation is synchronous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no superfluous information. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is acceptably complete in stating the primary function, but it lacks context on error handling, path requirements, or what happens if the destination already exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool duplicates an asset in the Content Browser. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes from siblings like rename or delete, though it could be more explicit about creating a copy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_asset or save_asset. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools